Should a majority religion force the entire country to follow their rules?

RickeyD

@YeshuaBought ; I am debating you...

YeshuaBought

RickeyD said:

@YeshuaBought ; I am debating you...

I have the right to set bounderies with you, leave me alone.

RickeyD

@YeshuaBought ; Stop lying about your relationship with Yeshua.

YeshuaBought

RickeyD said:

@YeshuaBought ; Stop lying about your relationship with Yeshua.

Leave me alone. You have the same respect for bounderies, as a rapist. You don't have the right to force yourself, on me. If you don't leave me alone, there will be a serious problem. i have the right to set bounderies, with you. LEAVE ME, THE **** ALONE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

piloteer

Sand said:

Laws must be justified by something more than the will of the majority.

They must rest on the eternal foundation of righteousness.

The majority rule only works if you're also considering individual rights. 

@Sand

 Since when did laws need to "be justified by something more than the will of the majority"? Is it not the will of the majority that dictates exactly how all laws are derived and applied? It's only a majority of peoples acceptance of the validity of laws that gives us the illusion of legitimately, but when a majority of the public reject the validity of certain laws or forms of governance, or they feel more laws are needed and a more stringent form of governance must be implemented, the will of the people will rule. 

Could you describe this "foundation of righteousness" of which you speak of? It kinda just sounds like a cliche catch phrase used by pretentious people to sound noble. I believe deeply in the merits of individualism, but if the majority has no care about individual rights, then that concept will probably be put on the backburner for a bit.      

RickeyD

Objective Morality: Darwin v. Jesus Christ-Yeshua: https://rickeyholtsclaw.com/2019/10/22/objective-morality-darwin-v-jesus-christ-yeshua/

RickeyD

Moral Law – Conscience – Remorse & the Atheist: https://rickeyholtsclaw.com/2019/09/09/moral-law-conscience-remorse-the-atheist/

Happy_Killbot

@RickeyD ;

YOUR BLOG IS NOT AN ADEQUATE SOURCE OF INFORMATION ON ANYTHING BUT YOUR OPINION!

Happy_Killbot

@RickeyD

IT IS A FALLACY TO APPEAL TO AUTHORITY, IT IS DISHONEST TO DECLARE YOURSELF AN AUTHORITY, AND SHAMEFUL TO APPEAL TO YOURSELF AS AN AUTHORITY

MayCaesar

@piloteer

Deriving the law from the will of the majority is a very bad idea, first because the majority opinions change over time (sometimes in a very undesirable direction, such as in the case of Soviet Union or Tojo's Japan), and second because it voids minorities of their rights. Which is why virtually all modern democratic states are constitutional democracies, featuring a document that prescribes some hard rules that are not ever to be overruled, not even by the 100% majority agreement.

The law has to originate from some hard axioms, such as "Individual liberty is supreme", or "The government is to serve the people, not to rule over them". And those axioms, in turn, have to come from a certain philosophical/ideological stance. And while I personally think that using Christian philosophy for this purpose is far from the optimal solution, it still seems better to me than having no stance at all and just allowing people to build any system they feel like building at the moment. History shows that such an approach almost always results either in a totalitarian dictatorship, or in a failed state society.

RickeyD

@Happy_Killbot ; I am not the "authority" but I speak for said Authority because I possess His Spirit and I am speaking in obedience to His will. You don't understand this because you're a sodomite-spiritually dead-atheist who is determined to die in Hell. For this reason I cannot help you.

piloteer

@MayCaesar

Your argument only pertains to constitutional democracies, and not the natural will of the masses. Perhaps you and I would agree that a mandate by the masses can lead to policies that aren't ideal, but who are you and I in the scope of the majority? If it is the majority who DO believe in the merits of their ideals, why should their wants and needs be cast aside for the sake of two weirdos on debateIsland who believe in the merits of individualism? (OK, maybe I'm the only weirdo and you just happen to believe in individualism also)

As far as the American constitution being some sort of binding document that can't be altered, I'm not buying it. The will of the masses have put restrictions on our rights to bare arms and they're itching to put even more restrictions on us and that was a founding principle of the constitution and our nation. We also pay taxes without due process. We can be drafted into a war. All of those things were ideals that were written into the constitution, only to be shelved. It is the American public who either ignores it and lets those changes occur, or they accept those changes because they believe they are justified. Whether the public ignores it or accepts it, those two things are the same and the outcome will also be the same.

 Nietzsche pointed out that ancient Greece and the Roman Empire started out as democracies also, but chalked those up to nothing more than "social experiments", and claimed that all democracies eventually wither out after 200 or 300 years. If you and I want to truly hold onto our ideal of individualism, it is my belief that we can't just simply hide under the argument that our constitution safeguards our individual rights, because that obviously isn't working. We must objectively prove the merits of our ideals in the face of a mob rule mentality and be persuasive to majority. We need to let them know how and why their hive mind policies are not ideal for anybody but the elites who can fool everybody into thinking they are the interpreters of the will of the masses, therefore they should be the authority to the masses. We need to show the public that the only thing that drives oppression is the peoples acceptance of oppressive laws and authorities.   

MayCaesar

@piloteer

What is the "natural will of the masses"? How can masses have any will, for that matter? Individuals can; masses cannot.
The fact that we cannot stop the majority from ruling over us in most cases is another matter. But the simple fact that someone can get something by force does not make them an authority.

Constitution can be altered, but it is a bug, not a feature. The fact that the government has grown to the extent to which it has and overruled many of the limitations that the Founding Fathers put in is also a bug (quite expected one, but nonetheless).

I do not disagree that democracies are not permanent; I have never liked democracy as a system to begin with, constitutional or not. I am simply saying that the idea behind a constitutional democracy is exactly to construct a system in which people have a vote in how the country is run, and yet the majority is prevented from tyrannising the minority. That it does not quite work that way in practice is a different matter.

Happy_Killbot

@RickeyD You claim to speak for god, but I don't think there is a god. That would not only make you no authority, it would make you a .

What does your authority say about lying?

RickeyD

@Happy_Killbot You don't "think" there is a God...this is why you're a fool to you homosexuality and serve Satan...you live by the flesh in deceit and spiritual ignorance.

Happy_Killbot

@RickeyD no, you have it all wrong. First off, I don't think there is a god because there is no evidence to support it, and all the arguments in favor of it have been eviscerated one by one, such that none stand to scrutiny.

Should there be sudden irrefutable evidence, I would change my mind in a heartbeat.

Meanwhile, theocratic regimes worldwide have some of the lowest standards of living and worst conditions on the planet. secular democracies, on the other hand live in peace and stability. They experience vast wealth and longer, happier lives. Based solely on the evidence, I would argue that theocracies, besides being a threat to our freedoms and our very way of life, are terrible forms of government.

Theocracies ought to be toppled, religion should be separated from government, and freedom of religion should be remembered to include freedom from religion!

smoothie

@RickeyD

HOW ABOUT STAY ON THE TOPIC

RickeyD

@Happy_Killbot

The evidence for our Creator is overwhelming, you're too blind and spiritually dead to see it; therefore, you will be "without excuse" when you stand in the Judgment before God.

Happy_Killbot

@RickeyD

If the evidence is overwhelming, why don't you show it already?

@RickeyD said:

The evidence for our Creator is overwhelming, you're too blind and spiritually dead to see it; therefore, you will be "without excuse" when you stand in the Judgment before God.

RickeyD

@Happy_Killbot ; I have, you're too blind to see and you heart is too hard too believe.

Evidence for our Creator

Introduction

“Christianity is the only coherent worldview with corresponding truth that defines origin-meaning-morality-destiny and directly answers with logical consistency, empirical adequacy, experiential relevance.” (Ravi Zacharias) There is ONE God and ONE Mediator for sin, Jesus Christ-Yeshua (1 Timothy 2:5).

“There are honest doubters and dishonest doubters. An honest doubter is willing to search out the truth and live by the results; a dishonest doubter doesn’t want to know the truth. He can’t find God for the same reason a thief can’t find a policeman.” Adrian Rogers

Why did God create the Heavens and the Earth?

The Creator of our Universe is Spirit (John 4:24) and His abode is the Spiritual Realm (John 18:36). As a result of discord, rebellion, sin, having been introduced into the Kingdom of God before the creation of Time, our Creator set-forth a Plan (2 Timothy 1:9-10) to deal with this destructive turmoil/rebellion apart from the Kingdom (Isaiah 14:12-14; Ezekiel 28:11-17; Luke 10:18).

Our Creator’s Plan included the creation of a separate and unique Realm apart from the Spiritual Realm where the conflict in the Kingdom could be dealt with void further destruction to God’s Kingdom. The Holy Spirit has named and identified this separate Realm as “Time.” Our Creator took elements from the Spiritual World that are not visible to our senses constrained by Time and He formed those elements into matter which are the building blocks for everything that is visible and invisible to the human eye and everything that is interacted with via mankind’s five-senses (Hebrews 11:3; Colossians 1:15-17).

With rapidity, our Creator created the Heavens and the Earth and all that is in them in six, twenty-four-hour days (Genesis 1:1-31).

Three-forms of evidence validating our Creator, Jesus Christ-Yeshua…

1) Nature

2) The Incarnation of God in Time

3) The Written Covenant between God and Mankind

1) Empirical – Preliminary – Substantive – Observable Evidence = Nature

The Universe, encompassing the Sun-Moon-Stars-Earth, descending downward to the complex human genome (life), all provide empirical, preliminary, substantive, observable, evidence for design in Nature and therefore mandate a Designer (Isaiah 66:1; Acts 7:49).

The Holy Spirit has clearly articulated that anyone who denies these empirical, supernatural, inexplicable, forms of Nature as testimony relevant to our Creator’s validity will be “without excuse” when they stand in the Judgment before Jesus Christ-Yeshua in Eternity (Romans 1:18-32; Revelation 20:11-15). It is the preliminary evidence of Nature that confronts mankind daily/nightly and is so designed as to draw all men and women to seek knowledge of God and find life in His Name, Jesus Christ-Yeshua.

God has so uniquely created and ordained Nature as testimony and evidence relevant to Himself that He has nullified mankind’s ability to define origin of matter or understand the supernatural Universe He has placed before us (Ecclesiastes 3:11). Origin of matter will, until the end of Time, remain a mystery to mankind as man is cognitively constrained by Time and The Curse; all that is visible and invisible to the human eye in Nature was established, created, by elements from the invisible Spiritual World; therefore, the genesis of our Creation will forever remain an enigma, a mystery, to the mind of man. Anyone seeking Truth, void a personal bias against the validity of our Creator, can easily apprehend and discern the supernatural design of creation mandating a supernatural Creator.

“By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.” Hebrews 11:3 (NASB)

“He has made everything appropriate in its time. He has also set eternity in their heart, yet so that man will not find out the work which God has done from the beginning even to the end.” Ecclesiastes 3:11 (NASB)

2) The Incarnate, Living Word of God, Jesus Christ-Yeshua

There exists no greater or more popular historical figure than Jesus Christ-Yeshua. The Atheist who rejects the historicity of Jesus simply rejects the overwhelming evidence for His validity readily accessible-available in Biblical and extra-Biblical as well as non-Christian, archeological, sources.

Our Creator did not leave His Human creation to wonder or ponder about the one-true-God and His Plan and purposes for Time and Eternity, but God left the Spiritual Realm some 2019-years ago, He divided history, and entered the Realm of Time in the flesh through a virgin birth that was essential to establish Him as Messiah who would selflessly give Himself to save mankind from death in sin and death in Hell (Philippians 2:5-11; Matthew 1:23).

During the 33.5-years of His Earthly sojourn, Jesus fulfilled over 300-Messianic prophecies as articulated in the Covenant of Law extending from the Genesis to The Book of Malachi. The statistical chances of

• 1 person fulfilling 8 prophecies: 1 in 100,000,000,000,000,000;

• 1 person fulfilling 48 prophecies: 1 chance in 10 to the 157th power;

• 1 person fulfilling 300+ prophecies: Only Jesus!
  

In the Gospel of John, Chapter 14 v. 6, Jesus *said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.”

Anyone contemplating the Deity of Jesus Christ in light of the previous Scripture (John 14:6) must come to ONE of only three-conclusions concerning Jesus Christ. Jesus is either a…

1. .

2. lunatic.

3. Lord

Every human being born subsequent to 33-AD and having attained an age of reason with sufficient cognitive acuity to discern the moral law as written upon our heart by our Creator (Romans 2:15) will have to choose between these three-options seeing that their eternal destiny will depend solely upon which option they choose.

3) The written word of God, the Holy Bible

God the Father has not only provided Nature/the Universe and the Son, Jesus Christ-Yeshua as testimony of His validity, power, dominion, but God has also provided a written “Covenant of Grace” (Matthew 26:28) to His human creation through the Holy Spirit. God the Holy Spirit meticulously, supernaturally, moved through the inner-man of 40-men of antiquity, holy men set-apart specifically for the purpose of penning on parchment the Plan and purposes of our Creator; a journey of 1400-to-1600-years, three-continents, three-languages, explaining in detail our origin, our purpose and meaning, God’s moral law and God’s Plan for the destiny of Time and Eternity.

For those who scoff at the integrity of God’s written word and thereby call the Holy Spirit a , understand that the very same Creator who initiated visible matter from the unseen Spiritual World and used same to create this vast supernatural Universe and gave you the breath of life, this very same Creator is abundantly capable and qualified to provide you and provide me with the EXACT words He desires we have so that we can know Him, His Plan and purposes for Time and our individual lives. Irrespective of councils of men and theologians, critics, scholars, all of the efforts of men concerning advocating for or disparaging the Holy Scriptures, know that the Bible remains the best-selling Book in History and that God’s word will NEVER fade away (Matthew 24:35).

Conclusion

Our Creator has provided Human KIND with three-undeniable-forms of evidence relevant to His validity, reality, power, dominion, Deity…

1) Nature.

2) Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Living Word of God.

3) A written covenant, the Holy Scriptures.

Anyone who desires to know God intimately, personally, will find Him and enter into a relationship with Him if they will seek Him with their whole heart…He will be found by them (Jeremiah 29:11-13). God will NOT entertain or commune with a heart that does not truly desire to know Him but He is faithful to make His abode with anyone willing to come to Him in faith and believe that He is true.

“But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him.” Hebrews 11:6 (NKJV)

Happy_Killbot

@RickeyD This evidence is as good as the evidence for Harry-potter.

In order for it to be evidence, it has to be repeatable and tested under rigorous scrutiny.

All of these have other possibilities, but I don't want to talk about geopolitics right now.

If this counts as evidence, then why doesn't evidence of other gods from different texts count too?

RickeyD

@Happy_Killbot ; It's not that the evidence is lacking...it's the fact that you're too lost in your rebellion and spiritual ignorance and servitude to Satan to see the evidence and internalize same. You're lost and too self-consumed in your foolishness to humble yourself and acknowledge the God who died so that you could live; for this, you will reap what you sow!

“There are honest doubters and dishonest doubters. An honest doubter is willing to search out the truth and live by the results; a dishonest doubter doesn’t want to know the truth. He can’t find God for the same reason a thief can’t find a policeman.” Adrian Rogers

TKDB

@piloteer

Prove it!

I challenge you to prove your Theory, with some concrete evidence?

I ask this because not ONE non Religious individual has presented any concrete evidence, to support the non Religious rhetoric, that they present, that isn't non Religious oriented?

"YES!!!!! Science and progress are the new religion and they are the new majority and all peoples should be forced to abide by their teachings. Next question."

Like what non Religious book of Science can be used to discredit Religion in general, or God, or Jesus?

And any Atheist written Science book, doesn't count.

And some other additional questions: 

Do you, or any other non Religious individual, have any evidence, where any citizen, has filed a Restraining Order against any Religion for it forcing anyone to do anything according to any Religion?

Maybe for Religion stalking any citizen?

Or for any Religion to tell any citizen, to commit any crimes? 

Do you have any evidence, where any Religious building has been protested, because the Religion was forcing citizens, to do this or that? 

Happy_Killbot

@RickeyD Way to avoid the question, just like a pro!

Why are you so dishonest and self absorbed that you will not answer my most reasonable question.

Do you have something to hide?

Perhaps some secret that you know deep inside you, but are unwilling to let out, for fear or hate, or simple indignation?

What test can be done, that will always yield true, to prove a god exists?

RickeyD

@Happy_Killbot ; I have answered your mindless questions...you're too dead spiritually to understand.

Happy_Killbot

@RickeyD Oh yeah?

I seem to have missed it...

Would you be so kind, as to repeat what that test was, that will always yield true, to prove god exists?

RickeyD

@Happy_Killbot ; Why not begin with the origin of matter. Use your science and start at The Beginning of Time...explain the origin of matter void our Creator.

No one knows how the Universe Began:

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/bb_whycare.htm

RickeyD

@Happy_Killbot ; Come on atheist....it's getting late here and I'm tired. Answer the question.

Happy_Killbot

@RickeyD We do not know how the universe came to be, and how matter came to exist. What we do know is that matter is made of energy, and energy is made of information. Information can be created through through random quantum fluctuations in certain circumstances.

Just because we do not know how the universe came to be doesn't mean the Easter bunny gave birth to the universe, or that a golden eagle laid an egg on a mountain, or we live in a simulation, or anything else.

This is not proof of god, it is proof that humans have limited knowledge and neural resources. In time, these mysteries will be solved, but right now they remain unknown.

Sand

@MayCaesar

>>>Once again, people doing science can believe whatever they want - but science itself should not feature those beliefs and has to be atheist, in the sense that, in the lack of proof of god's existence, it should assume that God does not exist. This is what the scientific method demands.<<<

I agree in a sense because I see where you are going with it.

(I would say more so agnostic)

>>>Science says, "I do not know", all the time, and has been for thousands of years. Which is why it refrains from talking about things that have no indication of existing.
Science does consider hypothetical questions, of course, and one of those questions very well could be, "Is it possible that God exists? If so, what evidence would there be?" Which is very different from saying, "I believe that God exists". Science does not deal with beliefs.<<<

This is the area, I disagree. I think science doesn't say, "I don't know", enough. It is because a lot of scientists deal with beliefs, to me it is ok, I feel they just need to indicate to their readers their assumptions.  - you and I will probably have a great varying of opinions on this subject.

>>>Religion has funded science; communism has funded science; fascism has funded science; imperialism has funded science... It does not indicate in any way that, without funding from these sources, science would not exist. Science would likely exist under any circumstances, as bettering ourselves and improving our technology is our human nature.<<<

I agree.

>>>Jeff Bezos has created Amazon. You could say that he created it thanks to the US government, but he is the one who has created it and hence is an owner of it. Similarly, scientists may have made a lot of their discoveries thanks to the funding from religious institutions, but they are the ones who have made those discoveries, hence credit should go to them.
That is my point exactly: people are the ones doing science, not religion or anything else.<<<

I agree.

It is enjoyable to debate with you. You are very reasonable. Stay thirsty my friend.

MayCaesar

@Sand

Virtually every scientific paper in existence contains some "I do not know"-s. How much more does it have to say it?
You do have to differentiate the actual science from its reflection that appears in the media, and that has only a very loose connection to the actual science. I can say from my personal experience of working in physics that if you do not put any "I do not know"-s in your paper, then your paper will be very unlikely to be accepted by the peer-reviewed journals, since they like papers that propose future venue of research, and discourage papers that claim to know all the answers.

I always like to debate, almost anything, and the enjoyment is mutual.

Sand

@piloteer

Righteousness is the scope of what is right.

You are right "the will of the people will rule", I believe that is the problem is in this discussion.

For the sake of how the topic of this discussion is phrased, it puts fear in the eyes of atheists.

That is why atheists are advocating in this discussion that everything must be governed secularly.

Definition:

Secular - denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.

I feel this is the wrong word to use when governing this country in particular.

Because everyone has values, evidence, beliefs, dreams, and hopes that need to be incorporated in decision making.

Plus the founding fathers built this country on religious freedom.

Additionally, they made sure it was written in the Bill of Rights to remind everyone what this country's foundation is.

With the advent of atheistic thinking, a serious push for scientific reasoning is made.

The assumption is that science has to be atheistic, where most scientists were religious and saw no conflict with their views.

So when scientific evidence is given by religious people, the evidence is rejected by atheistic reasoning to point to another atheistic conclusion.

Now the push is to remove all religious thinking outside of the government decision making.

Because atheistic thinking is the religious conclusions are fictitious since it lacks evidence.

It doesn't lack evidence it is just the evidence that is rejected by atheists and taught it points to another conclusion, which in religious minds consider also fictitious.

So you have two groups both pointing to the same evidence arguing each viewpoint is fictitious.

That is the real reason atheists are trying to point out flaws in the Bible.

Making negative claims of slavery, misogynistic, racism, war, killing, child abuse, etc. It is in an effort to discredit the viability of the information.

Now they are making assertions that we need a secular society in an effort to further hinder religious thinking.

Their thrust is to prevent the thinking of religious views, in an effort to further devalue the conclusions of religious people.

Because the two viewpoints cannot be decided upon, this is a slick way to eliminate the other contestant so they will be the only one who could possibly win.

That is why they assert everything bad comes from religion when it is actually the people who cause wars and crime, not religion.

All of these assertions and attacks are on both sides, but they always paint it as coming from religion only.

Their overall goal is to make an 'Oligarchical in thought type' government where it is a free society yet illegal to have religious thinking.

I believe they will be successful.

This is completely against the founding fathers' setup for this government.

So the question is not just about the majority, but about the majority and "what is right", or the "rights" of people.

Righteousness or in other words "what is right" is to advocate what is in the Bill of rights for people.

This country got in trouble with the majority rule with the slavery issue.

The south was the majority but the north was the authority.

The mistake was not focusing on the "rights" of the people.

The point I was making is that harmony is needed, one viewpoint is not more important than the other, everyone's rights are important, religious, atheist, agnostic, etc.

But that is not the goal of this discussion or any of the discussions about religion.

John_C_87

Should a democratically organized group of people be allowed to show and demonstrate religious prejudice?

Should religion be found guilting of inability to provide a common defense to the general welfare?

TKDB

@Happy_Killbot

Are you your own Authority?

"IT IS A FALLACY TO APPEAL TO AUTHORITY, IT IS DISHONEST TO DECLARE YOURSELF AN AUTHORITY, AND SHAMEFUL TO APPEAL TO YOURSELF AS AN AUTHORITY"


And you'll say what you will to self support your own opinions, as well?

"YOUR BLOG IS NOT AN ADEQUATE SOURCE OF INFORMATION ON ANYTHING BUT YOUR OPINION!"

Happy_Killbot

@TKDB If you are trying to make the meta point that it is just my opinion that someone is not a source of authority on anything but their opinion, then good job, you have done it.

Now consider the paradox: If someone was an authority for more than there own opinion, what would happen if they said they were not?

TKDB

@Happy_Killbot

Is any Religion, personally HARMING you in any way shape or form?

Has any Religion followed you home, and told you how to THINK, or to LIVE your life?

Is it personally HARMING the very same neighborhood that YOU live in?

Have you called the police, and expressed to them that you're a non Religious individual, and that you maybe view ANY Religion as a probable threatening
entity? 

"Theocracies ought to be toppled, religion should be separated from government, and freedom of religion should be remembered to include freedom from religion!"

"@TKDB If you are trying to make the meta point that it is just my opinion that someone is not a source of authority on anything but their opinion, then good job, you have done it.

Now consider the paradox: If someone was an authority for more than there own opinion, what would happen if they said they were not?"


@Happy_Killbot, I see the non Religious paradox that you're presenting to the Public.

"Paradox: A statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory."

Show the Internet your individual non Religious proof, that ANY Religion is FORCING itself unto any county, city, or state, in the United States? 

Where any Religious building should be shut down, because of its Public efforts to force its Religion unto the community around it?

A video?

A newspaper article?

A magazine article?

Surely, someone somewhere, has utilized their Freedom of Speech, and their Freedom of the Press, to have written a news article, or magazine article, or produced a video to educate the Public, on any Religious building, and it's parishioners, in trying to purposefully FORCE any Religion on anyone, or a city, county, or a state for that matter?

Can you find that kind of evidence, outside of your own opinion, or perception?

You're already utilizing your Freedom from Religion, by not engaging in Religious activities right?

Are you maybe suggesting, that the Religious individuals in the U.S., should have their Religious Freedoms taken from them?

Is it your personal wish, to see Religion wiped from the United States as a whole, maybe based on your individual non Religious mindset?

Dee

@TKDB

You only have 15 question marks in your piece you’re losing your touch 

TKDB

@Dee ;

And you, didn't contest any of my debate points, now have you?


Please engage in an equal and fair manner?

Happy_Killbot

@TKDB Actually, yes. Religion has harmed me in the past.

Specifically, the fear and incredulous indoctrination efforts, compounded by the lack of acceptance, consistent push of authoritarian and anti-progressive values, backward illogical thinking, and the baffling efforts to hold me back intellectually and morally have all been harm done to me by religion.

Not only has Religion followed me home, and told you how to THINK, or to LIVE my life, but it also ingratiated and manipulated me.

But I was not going to take that. I am not a coward who should be expected to conform to the whims of the indignant self-righteous, or to the traditions of ancient people, if for no other reason than because I was raised with it. I am my own person. I am not a pawn to religion. No one should have to just accept this, and willingly clip their own wings in an effort to fit in with a group or to follow some unjustified moral code.

This is why Theocracies ought to be toppled. They represent a fundamentally flawed and immature way of thinking about the world, and you think it justified to put that in charge, to allow it any power whatsoever? This is not something I am willing to accept. It is something I am willing to go to war to fight.

Every church that is closed and converted into a homeless shelter is a cause for celebration.

Every religious individual that ignores his dogma is a sign of progress.

When people who have lived their lives under the veil of religious indoctrination peer out into reality, they may learn to accept the world for what it is.

Those who get over their denial of reality are to be commended, and those who do not ought best be condemned.

Dee

@TKDB



zzzzzzzz zzzzzzz zzzzzzx

YeshuaBought

RickeyD said:

@Happy_Killbot ; I have answered your mindless questions...you're too dead spiritually to understand.

How very unchristian of you. I am tired of you bullying people, in the Name of Jesus.

piloteer

MayCaesar said:

@piloteer

What is the "natural will of the masses"? How can masses have any will, for that matter? Individuals can; masses cannot.
The fact that we cannot stop the majority from ruling over us in most cases is another matter. But the simple fact that someone can get something by force does not make them an authority.

Constitution can be altered, but it is a bug, not a feature. The fact that the government has grown to the extent to which it has and overruled many of the limitations that the Founding Fathers put in is also a bug (quite expected one, but nonetheless).

I do not disagree that democracies are not permanent; I have never liked democracy as a system to begin with, constitutional or not. I am simply saying that the idea behind a constitutional democracy is exactly to construct a system in which people have a vote in how the country is run, and yet the majority is prevented from tyrannising the minority. That it does not quite work that way in practice is a different matter.

The natural will of the masses is the political, social, and philosophical circumstances we find our selves in now. The natural will of the masses are the circumstances we'll be in tomorrow just as it was the circumstance we were in the day before. So long as there are enough people to be able to be called the "masses" and we have any semblance of a society, the structure of said society will always be the natural will of the people.

You have readily admitted that ALL laws and authorities are derived from the will of the masses. You've done nothing to retort that truth except to spew your derision of that truth. I don't contest that individuals have free will, but I fail to see any argument on your part with which to demonstrate how or why the collective does not have free will. You've actually made a point the shows the collective does indeed have free will when you pointed out that in most cases we cannot stop the will of the majority from ruling over us. 

If you disagree that democracies do not last very long, perhaps you could tell us about one of those 2,000 year long democratic societies that has existed?!?      

MayCaesar

@piloteer

History has known a lot of examples when the opinion of the vast majority of people was overruled by a decisive enough leader; Pinochet and Lee Kuan Yew come to mind, who had to rule societies nearly 100% populated by hardcore socialists, yet they pushed through capitalist policies and, ultimately, got people to accept them.

The idea that masses decide history is something Marx faithfully believed in, but it is merely an oversimplified outlook on the actual forces behind the historical process. People do not just exert their will on each other; they can often refrain from doing anything at all in order to promote their views, as long as they fear the consequences of doing so, whether in terms of direct retaliation by a tyrannical government, or in terms of being affected negatively by the very actions they support.

I said that I "do not disagree" that democracies are not permanent. That said, some democracies can last a very long time; for example, Iceland is considered to be the oldest democracy, with the parliament soon to become 1,100 years old. Obviously a lot of things have changed in their political system, but their fundamental parliamentary structure was never disbanded.
Most democracies formed over the last century have remained democracies, and there is no telling how long they can last now. I do not see any reason, say, for the Japanese democracy as it is now to not last for 2,000 years - albeit, practically, the technological evolution is likely to change our world so much by then that, perhaps, the very word "democracy" will make no sense any more.

piloteer

MayCaesar said:

@piloteer

History has known a lot of examples when the opinion of the vast majority of people was overruled by a decisive enough leader; Pinochet and Lee Kuan Yew come to mind, who had to rule societies nearly 100% populated by hardcore socialists, yet they pushed through capitalist policies and, ultimately, got people to accept them.

Who was it Pinochet and Lee Kuan Yew were trying to make accept capitalist policies? Just because Karl Marx believed it is society that drives social history it doesn't mean it's automatically a fallacy. No matter how charismatic a leader is, if the people blindly go along with that leaders decisions, it was the masses themselves who decided to do that. That one leader obviously cannot physically force every member of society to capitulate to their mandates, and even if that leader could do so, it would be the will of the people to not resist. Non-action is also a manner in which the will of the masses is applied, and it happens to be just as concomitant  as robust involvement in social policy and individual determination.     

TKDB

@Happy_Killbot

Where's your proof?

(Any news media outlet stories?
How about a police report?
Maybe a Restraining Order?
Maybe a video from YouTube?)

To corroborate your below claims?


"Specifically, the fear and incredulous indoctrination efforts, compounded by the lack of acceptance, consistent push of authoritarian and anti-progressive values, backward illogical thinking, and the baffling efforts to hold me back intellectually and morally have all been harm done to me by religion."

"Not only has Religion followed me home, and told you how to THINK, or to LIVE my life, but it also ingratiated and manipulated me."

"But I was not going to take that."

"I am not a coward who should be expected to conform to the whims of the indignant self-righteous, or to the traditions of ancient people, if for no other reason than because I was raised with it. I am my own person. I am not a pawn to religion. No one should have to just accept this, and willingly clip their own wings in an effort to fit in with a group or to follow some unjustified moral code."

"This is why Theocracies ought to be toppled. They represent a fundamentally flawed and immature way of thinking about the world, and you think it justified to put that in charge, to allow it any power whatsoever? This is not something I am willing to accept."

"It is something I am willing to go to war to fight"

@Happy_Killbot

Where is this War at that you are lamenting over?

"Every church that is closed and converted into a homeless shelter is a cause for celebration."

"Every religious individual that ignores his dogma is a sign of progress."

"When people who have lived their lives under the veil of religious indoctrination peer out into reality, they may learn to accept the world for what it is."

"Those who get over their denial of reality are to be commended, and those who do not ought best be condemned."

@Happy_Killbot

I still have yet to SEE any News stories, where any Religion in general, has been incarcerated, for the above comments that you have expressed?

@Happy_Killbot

Religion has never acted in the manner that you have described, towards me.

When I've gone to a Religious building, it's been quiet and peaceful.

And I've never witnessed any law enforcement presence, turning the public away from going to a Religious building, based on your opinions, or perceptions?

And I'm wondering why that might be?

In your opinion, do you maybe think that the Police Departments across the country, have somehow been brainwashed by Religion in general?

There are 900,000 Police Officers in the United States.

And yet, I've yet to see ANY news stories, where any of those Police Officers have turned people away, from going to a Religious building, based on similar individual opinions or perceptions, not unlike your own.

Happy_Killbot

@TKDB Have you looked for any of those things?

Do they not exist or have you just never seen any?

TKDB

@Happy_Killbot

900,000 Police Officers being brainwashed by Religion? 

Again, 
In your opinion, do you maybe think that the Police Departments across the country, have somehow been brainwashed by Religion in general?

You're an individual arguing against Religion, so please, can you provide an answer to that question?

"@TKDB Have you looked for any of those things?

Do they not exist or have you just never seen any?"

Your opinion and perceptions exist to you, as you individually perceive them.

I base my life on Real World experiences, from what I've witnessed inside, and outside of various Religious buildings.

And I've yet to see any individuals protesting any Religious buildings?

Happy_Killbot

@TKDB What if it is true and you just haven't seen it because you weren't watching at the right time?

What if it always happens when your back is turned or you blink?

Did you watch all the TV and read all the news to make sure?

smoothie

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35990353

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/a-detrimental-influence-t_b_1106045

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_law

TKDB

@Happy_Killbot

You didn't debate the below questions at all, all you did was self rationalize around, to put the debate back on me?

"@TKDB What if it is true and you just haven't seen it because you weren't watching at the right time?

What if it always happens when your back is turned or you blink?

Did you watch all the TV and read all the news to make sure?"

@Happy_Killbot

So again, 
900,000 Police Officers being brainwashed by Religion? 

Again, 
In your opinion, do you maybe think that the Police Departments across the country, have somehow been brainwashed by Religion in general?

You're an individual arguing against Religion, so please, can you provide an answer to that question?